Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves voluntary certificate‑of‑compliance for oilfield sites after intense debate; amendment package adopted, measure reported favorably
Summary
HB 1191 would create a voluntary administrative certificate-of-compliance for on‑site oil and gas exploration/production sites that proponents say can reduce litigation risk and unlock investment; the committee adopted extensive amendments tightening definitions, confidentiality rules and safe harbors for prior operators and reported the bill favorably on a recorded vote.
Representative Jacob Landry and industry backers presented House Bill 1191 as a voluntary pathway to obtain a certificate of compliance for exploration and production sites. Sponsors said the certificate—based on an evaluation process and environmental testing submitted to the Department of Conservation & Energy (C&E)—would provide a "clean bill of health" that could be used administratively to give future operators greater certainty and reduce litigation risk tied to legacy contamination claims.
Don Caffrey of the Natural Resources Management Association said the process is voluntary, would involve sampling and an evaluation by C&E, and, where appropriate, a corrective action period. He described the certificate process as a way to return properties to commerce with administrative finality when a willing operator and landowner agree to the process.
Committee members pressed the sponsor and agency counsel about scope, the role of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), confidentiality of submitted data, the definition of an "operator of interest," fiscal impacts and whether the certificate could be used in court. Blake Hanford, executive counsel for the Department of Conservation & Energy, said C&E is the primary regulator for on‑site remediation at oilfield sites and that DEQ involvement is typically for off‑site or hazardous‑waste scenarios; he also described an existing memorandum of understanding for technical assistance when recap or statewide order 29b apply.
Amendment sets adopted in committee refined definitions (including beginning the "operator of interest" definition at the most recent solvent prior operator of record), removed DEQ from a direct role at one point because C&E believed it had internal capacity (while preserving applicable law references), added tighter confidentiality and safe‑harbor language to prevent reports of noncompliance from being used against prior operators in court, and converted some permissive judicial steps into mandatory administrative determinations. Sponsors said they will continue talks with stakeholders to tighten language between committee and the floor.
Representative Domingue and others raised process concerns and asked for more time to vet the full amendment package; sponsors said the process is voluntary and that they would not move the bill forward to cause unintended consequences. After questions and debate the committee adopted the amendment package and reported HB 1191 favorably; the final committee roll call recorded 13 yeas and 2 nays.
